s 



v.'j.r h 







Class 



L^ji. 



. la3 4 



THE lANDMRK OF FREEDOM. 



SPEECH 

OF . ., ' 

HON. CHARLES SUMNER 

AGAINST THE EEPEAL ..^, 

OF THE 

MISSOURI PROHIBITION OF SLAVEB.Y NORTH OF 36° 30'. 

m THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 21, 1854. 



J 



C^l 



" Curbed be kc that removeth his neighbor', Landmarh. And all the people shall say, Amkn." 

Dkut., ch. xivii, v. 27. 



The Senate having under consideration 
the bill to establiMh Territorial Govern- 
ments in Nebraska and Kansas — 
Mr. SUMNER said: 
Mr. President: I approach this discus- 
sion with awe. The mighty question, 
L with untold isf.^ues, which it involves, op- 
presses me. Like a portentous cloud, 
surcharged with irresistible storm and 
ruin, it seems to fill the whole heavens, 
making me painfully conscious how une- 
qual I am to the occasion — how unequal, 
also, is all that I can say, to all that I feel. 
In delivering my sentiments here to- 
day, I shall speak frnnkly — according to 
my convictions, without concealment or 
reserve. But if anything fell from the 
Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] in 
opening this discussion, which might 
seem to challenge a personal contest, 
I desire to say that I shall not enter upon 
It. Let not a word or a tone pass my lips, 
to direct attention, for a moment, from the 
transcendent theme, by the side of which 
Senators and Presidents are but dwarfs. 
I would not forget those amenities which 
be ong to this place, and are so well cal- 
culated to temper the antagonism of de- 
bate ; nor can I cease to remember and to 
feel, that, amidst all diversities of opinion, 
we are the representatives of thirty-one 
sister republics, knit together by iridisso- 
luble tie, and constituting that Plural Unit, 
which we all embrace bv the endearing 
name of country. 



The question presented for your con- 
sideration is not surpassed in grandeur by 
any which has occurred in our national 
history since the Declaration of Independ- 
ence. In every aspect it assumes gi<Tan- 
tic proportions, whether we simply con- 
sider the e.xfent of territory it concerns, or 
the public faith, and national policy which 
It assails, or that higher question— that 
Question of Questions, as far above others 
as Liberty is above the common things of 
Ijfe — which it opens anew for judginent. 
It concerns an immense region, 'larger 
than the original thirteen Sfat.'s, viein °in 

extent with all the existing free States 

stretching over prairie, field, and forest 

interlaced by silver streams, skirted by 
protecting mountains, and constituting the 

heart of the North American contineTit 

only a little smaller, let me add, than three 

great European countries combined 

Italy, Spain, and France — each of which, 
in succession, has dominated over the 
globe. This territory has already been 
likened, on this floor, to the Garden of 
God. The similitude is found, not merely 
in its present pure and virgin clmracler, 
but in its actual geographical situation, oc- 
cupying central spaces on this licmisphore, 
which, in their general relations, may welll 
compare with that early Asiatic home. 
We are told that. 



Southward through Eden went a river largp ; 
so here a strean flows southward which is 
larger than the Euphrates. And here, 



THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 



•^ '^^ 

.^0^^ 



too, amidst all the smilin<]r products of [end-all — the overthrow of tlie Prohibition 
nature, lavislifd l»y the hand of God, is the of Slavery. At first, it proposed simply to 
lofty tree of Libertv, planted by our father>l , declare, that the States formed out of this 



which, without exairireration, or even im 
aorination, may be likened to 



the tree of liff 



Iliprh t'lninent, Jiloomintj auibrusial fruit 
Of vegetaljlu gold. 

It is with regard to this territory, that you 
are now called to exercise the grandest 
function of the lawgiver, by establishing 
those rules of polity which will determine 
its future character. As the twig is bent 
the tree inclines; and the influences im- 
pressed upon the early days of an em- 
pire, like those upon a child, are of incon- 
ceivable importance to its future weal or 
woe. The bill now before us, proposes to 
organize and equip two new territorial es- 
tablishments, with governors, secretaries, 
IcLHslative councils, legislators, judges. 



territory should be admitted into the 
Union, " with or without slavery," and did 
not directly assume to touch this Prohi- 
bition. For some reason this was not sat- 
isfactory, and then it was precipitately 
proposed to declare, that the prohibition 
in the JNIissouri act " was superseded by 
the principles of the legislation of 1850, 
commonly called the Compromise Meas- 
ures, and is hereby declared inoperative." 
But this would not do ; and it is now 
proposed to declare, that the Prohibition, 
"being inconsistent with the principles of 
non-intervention, by Congress, with sla- 
very in tlie States and Territories, as recog- 
nised by the legislation of 1850, commonly 
called the Compromise Measures, is here- 
by declared inoperative and void." 

All this is to be done on pretences 



marshals, and the whole machinery of foj,„j^.ji ^po,, tj.e slavery enacimeiits of 
civil society. Such a measure, at any time, 
would deserve the most careful attention. 



But, at the present moment, it justly ex 
cites a peculiar interest, from the effort 
jnade — on pretences unsustained by facts— 
in violation of solemn covenant, and of the 
early principles of our fathers — to open 
thisimmense region to slavery. 

According to existing law, this territory 
is now guarded against slavery by a posi- 
tive prohibition, embodied in the act of 
Congress, approved JMarch 6th, 1820, pre- 
paratory to the admission of Missouri into 
the Union, as a sister State, and in the 
fallowing explicit words : 

" Sec. 8. Be it further enacted, That in all that 
territory ceded by France to the United Slalex^ under 
the name of Louisiana, which lies north 36° 30' of 
north latitude, not included within the limits of 
the State contemplated hv tliis act, slavkuy and 
INVOLUNTAKV SKRViTiiDK, otlicrwisc tliau HS the 
punishment of crimes, suAi.L, iiK, ANU is jikukuy, 
FOilKVKR I'llOIlIBITED." 

It is now proposed to set aside this pro- 
hibition ; but there seems to be a singular 



1850, thus seeking, with mingled audacity 
and cunning, " by indirection to find di- 
rection out." Now. sir, I am not here to 
speak in behalf of those measures, or to 
lean in any way upon their support. Re- 
lating to different subject-matters, contain- 
ed in different acts, which prevailed suc- 
cessively, at different times, and by differ- 
ent votes — some persons voting for one 
measure, and some voting for another, 
and very few voting for all — they cannot be 
rewarded as a unit, embodying conditions 
of compact, or compromise, if you jjlease, 
adopted equally by all parties, and there- 
fore obligatory on all parties. But since 
this broken series of measures has been 
adduced as an apology for the proposition 
now before us, I desire to say, that, such 
as they are, they cannot, by any effort of 
inter])retation, by any distorting wand of 
power, by any perverse alchemy, be trans- 
muted into a repeal of that original Prohi- 
bition of Silvery. 

On this head there are several points to 



indecision as to the way in which the deed which I would merely call attention, ana 



shall be done. From the time of its first 
introduction, in the report of the Com- 
mittee on Territories, the proposition has 
assumed different shapes; and it promises 
to assume as many as ProtfMis ; now, one 
thimr in Ibrm, and now, another; now, like 
a river, and then like llame : but, in every 
form and shape, identical in substance ; 
with but one end and aim — its be-all and 



then pass on. First : The slavery enact- 
ments of 1850 did not j^retcnd, in terms, 
to touch, much less to change, the condi- 
tion of the Louisiana Territory, which was 
already fixed by C(jngressional enactment, 
but simply acted upon "newly-acquired 
Territories," the condition of which was 
not already fixed by Congressional enact- 
ment. The two transactions related to 



!i^'i VJ^''-^. r''?F 



dUN 6 1917 



SPEECH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 



8 



different subject-matters. Secondly: The | against the deed," I arraign it: First, \n 
enactments do not directly touch the sub- - _ . ^ o 

ject of slavery, during the Territorial ex- 
istence of Utah and New Mexico ; but 
they provide prospectively, that, when ad- 
mitted as States, they shall be received 
" with or without slavery." Here certainly 
can be no overthrow of an act of Congress 
which directly concerns a Territory during 
its Territorial existence. Thirdly : Dur- 
ing all the discussion of these measures 
in Congress, and afterwards before the 
people, and through the public press, at 
the North and the South alike, no person 
was heard to intimate that the Prohibition 
of Slavery in the Missouri act was in any 
way disturbed. An&, fourthly : The acts 
themselves contain a formal provision, 
that " nothing herein contained shall be 
construed to impair or qualify anything" 
in a certain article of the resolutions an- 
nexing Texas, wherein it is expressly de- 
clared, that in territory north of the Mis- 
souri Compromise line, " slavery, or invol- 
untary servitude, except for crime, shall be 
prohibited." 

But I do not dwell on these things. 
These pretences have been already amply 
refuted by able Senators who have prece- 
ded me. It is clear, beyond contradiction, 
that the Prohibition of Slavery in this Terri- 
tory has not been superseded or in any way 
contravened by the Slavery Acts of 1850. 
The proposition before you is, therefore, 
original in its character, without sanction 
from any former legislation, and it must, 
accordingly, be judged by its merits, as an 
original proposition. 

Here, sir, let it be remembered, that the 
friends of Freedom are not open to any 
charge of aggression. They are now stand- 
ing on the defensive, guarding the early 
entrenchments thrown up by our fathers. 
No proposition to abolish slavery any- 
where is now before you ; but, on the con- 
trary, a proposition to abolish Freedom. 
The term Abolitionist, which is so often 
applied in reproach, justly belongs, on this 
occasion, to him who would overthrow 
this well-established landmark. He is, 
indeed, no Abolitioni.^t of Slavery ; let 
him be called, sir, an Abolitionist of Free- 
dom. For myself, whether with many or 
few, my place is taken. Even if alone, my 
feeble arm should not be wanting as a bar 
against this outrage. 

On two distinct grounds, " both strong 



the name of Public Faith, as an infraclion 
of solemn obligations, assumed beyond re- 
call by the South, on the admission of Mis- 
souri into the Union as a slave State : 
Secondly, I arraign it, in the name of Free- 
dom, as an unjustifiable departure from the 
original anti-slavery policy of our fathers. 
These two heads I propose to consider in 
their order, glancing under the latter at the 
objections to the Prohibition of Slavery in 
the Territories. 

And here, sir, before I approach the ar^ 
gument, indulge me with a few preliminary 
words on the character of this proposition. 
Slavery is the forcible subjection of one 
human being, in person, labor, and prop- 
erty, to the will of another. In this simple 
statement is involved its whole injustice. 
There is no offence against religion, against 
morals, against humanity, which may not, 
in the license of this institution, stalk 
" unwhipt of justice." For the husband and 
wife there is no marriage; for the mother 
there is no assurance that her infant child 
will not be ravished from her breast; for all 
who bear the name of Slave, there is noth- 
ing that they can call their own. Without 
a father, without a mother, almost without 
a God, the slave has nothing but a master. 
It would be contrary to that Rule of Right, 
which is ordained by God, ifsuch a system, 
though mitigated often by a patriarchal 
kindness, and by a plausible physical 
comfort, could be otherwise than perni- 
cious in its influences. It is confessed, that 
the master suffers not less than the slave. 
And this is not all. The whole social fabric 
is disorganized; labor loses its dignity ; in- 
dustry sickens; education finds no schools, 
and all the land of slavery is impoverished. 
And now, sir, when the conscience Oi 
mankind is at last aroused to these things ; 
when, throughout the civilized world, a 
slave-dealer is a by-word and a reproach, 
we, as a. nation, are about to open a new 
market to the traffickers in flesh, that 
haunt the shambles of the South. Such an 
act, at this time, is removed from all reach 
of that palliation often vouchsafed to t^la- 
very. This wrong, we are speciously told, 
by those who seek to defend it, is not our 
original sin. It was entailed upon us, so 
we are instructed, by our ancestors ; and 
the responsibility is often, with exultation, 
thrown upon the mother country. Now, 



4 THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 

without .stoppin;r to inquire into the value Morocco, by its untutored ruler, has ex- 
ofthis ai>nlo_'y, wtiirh is never adduced in pressed its desire, stamped in the formal 
behalf of othr'r ahuses, and which availed terms of a treaty, that the very name of 
nolhini; a:Tainst that kiMi,dy i)0wer, im- Slavery may perish from the minds of men ; 
posed "hy^the mother country, uliich and only recently, from the Dey of 
our fathers overthrew, it is suHicicnt for Tunis, has proceeded that noble act, 
the present purpose, to know, that it is now by which, " in honor of God, and to dis- 
proposed to make slavery our own oriiri- tinguish man from the brute creation"— I 
nal art. Here is a fresh case of actual quote his own words — he decreed its to- 
transi,fression, which we cannot cast upon tal abolition throughout his dominions, 
the shoulders of any proirenitors, nor upon Let Christian America be willing to be 
any mother country, distant in Ume or tatight by these examples. God forbid 
place. The Congress of the United States, that our republic — " heir of all the ages, 
the people of the United States, at this day, j foremost in the files of lime'' — should 
in this vaunted period of liirht, will be re- adopt anew the barbarism which they 
sponsible for it, so that it shall be said here- have renounced. 

after, so long as the dismal history of sla- I As the effort now making is extraordi- 
very is road, that, in the year of Christ | nary in character, so no assumption 
18.54. a new and deliberate act was passed, ' seems too extraordinary to be wielded in 
by which a vast Territory was opened to its support. The primal truth of the Equal- 
its inroads. | ity of men, proclaimed in our Declaration 
Alone in the compnnv of nations does of Independence, has been assailed, and 
our country assume this hateful champion- ; this Great Charter of our country discred- 
ship. In despotic Russia, the serfdom ' ited. Sir, you and I will soon pass away, 
which constitutes the " peculiar in?titu- ' but that charter will continue to stand 
tion " of that great empire, is never allowed 1 above impeachment or question. The Dec- 
to travel with the imperial tiag, according laration of Independence was a Decla- 
to the American pretension, into provinces ration of Rights, and the language em- 
newly acquired by the common blood and ployed, though general in its character, 
treasure, hut is carefully restricted by pos- j must obviously be restrained within the 
itivc prohibition, in hannony with the gen- | design and sphere of a Declaration of 
eral conscience, within its ancient con- Rights, involving no such absurdity as 
fines ; and this prohibition — the Wilmot was attributed to it yesterday by the Sen- 
proviso of Russia — is rigorously enforced ator from Indiana, [Mr. Pettit.] Sir, it 
on ever) side, in all the provinces, as in i is a palpable fact that men are not oorn 
Besarabiaon the south, and Poland on the equal in physical strength or in mental ca- 
west, so that, in fact, no Russian iiitbleman pacities, in beauty of form or health of 
has been able to move into these iinportant | body. These mortal cloaks of flesh dif- 
terrilorifs with his slaves. Thus Russia ' fer, as do these worldly garments. Di- 
spraks Ibr freedom, and disowns the slave- j vursity or inequality, in these respects, is 
holding dogma of our country. Far away i the law of creation. But as God is no 
in the East, at the "gateways of the day," respecter of persons, and as all are equal 
in elTi-minate India, slavery has been con- ! in his sight, whether Dives or Lazarus, 
demncd. In Coiistantinoi)le, the queeidy master or slave, so are all equal in natural 
seat of the most powerful Mohammedan | inborn rights; and, partlon me, if I say, 
empirr, where l)arl),iristii still luinijles wifli ' it is a vain sophism to adduce in argument 
civilization, the Utt(jman Sultan has fast- against this vital axiomof Liberty, the phys- 



ened upon it the stigma of disapprobation. 
The liarhary States of Africa, occu])ying 



ical or mental inequalities by which men 
are characterized, or the unhappy degra- 



Ihe same parallels of latitude with the dalion to which, in violation of a common 
slave Slates of our Union, and resembling brotherhood, they are doomed. To deny 
them in the nature of their boundaries, j the Declaration of Iiidependence is to 
their productions, their climate, and the rush ou the bosses of the shield of the 
peculiar institution," which sought shel- Almighty, which, in all respects, the sup- 



ter in i)oth, have been changed into abo 
lilii>iiists. Algiers, seated on the line of 



porters of this measure seem to do. 
To the delusive suggestion of the Sen- 



3U'^ 30', has been dedicated toFieedoin. ator from North Carolii»^. '"'^^••* ^-t--vo "i 



SPEECH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 



that, by the overthrow of this prohibition, 
the number of slaves will not be increased : 
that there will be simply a beneficent diffu- 
sion of slavery, and not its extension, I 
reply at once, that this argument, if of 
any value — if not mere words and noth- 
ing else — would equally justify and re- 
quire the overthrow of the Prohibition of 
Slavery in the free States, and indeed, 
everywhere throughout the world. All the 
dikes which, in different countries, from 
time to time, with the march of civili- 
zation, have been painfully set up against 
the inroads of this evil, must be removed, 
and every land opened anew to its de- 
structive flood. It is clear, beyond dis- 
pute, that by the overthrow of this prohi- 
bition, slavery will be quickened, and 
slaves themselves will be multiplied, while 
" new room and verge" will be se- 
cured for the gloomy operations of slave 
law, under which free labor will droop, 
and a vast territory be smitten with sterility. 
Sir, a blade of grass would not grow 
where the horse of Attila had trod ; nor 
can any true prosperity spring up in the 
foot-prints of the slave. 

But it is argued that slaves will not be 
carried into Nebraska in large numbers, 
and that, therefore, the question is of 
small practical moment. My distinguished 
colleague, [Mr. Everett,] in his eloquent 
speech, hearkened to this apology, and 
allowed himself, while upholding the pro- 
hibition, to disparage its importance in a 
manner, from which I feel obliged kindly, 
but most strenuously, to dissent. Sir, the 
census shows that it is of vital con- 
sequence. There is Missouri, at this mo- 
ment, with Illinois on the east and Ne- 
braska on the west, all covering nearly the 
same spaces of latitude, and resenibling 
each other in soil, climate, and natural pro- 
ductions. Mark now the contrast! By the 
potent etlicacy of the ordinance of the 
Northwestern Territory, Illinois is now a 
free State, while Missouri has 87,422 
slaves ; and the simple question which 
challenges an answer is, whether Nebras- 
ka shall be preserved in the condition of 
Illinois, or surrendered to that of Missouri? 
Surely this cannot be treated lightly. But 
for myself, I am unwilling to measure the 
exigency of the prohibition by the num- 
ber of persons, whether many or few, 
whom it may protect. Human rights, 
whether in a vast multitude or a solitary 



individual, are entitled to an equal and un- 
hesitating support. In this spirit, the flag 
of our country only recently became the 
impenetrable panoply of a homeless wan- 
derer, who claitned its protection in a 
distant sea ; and in this spirit I am con- 
strained to declare that there is no place 
accessible to human avarice, or human lust, 
or human force — whether in the lowest 
valley, or on the loftiest mountain top, 
whether on the broad flower-spangled 
prairies, or the snowy caps of the Rocky 
Mountains — where the Prohibition of Sla- 
very, like the commandments of the Deca- 
logue, should not go. 

But leaving these things behind, I press 
at once to the argument. 

I. And now, sir, in the name of that Pub- 
lic Faith, which is the very ligament of civil 
society, and which the great Roman ora- 
tor tells us it is detestable to break even 
with an enemy, I arraign this scheme, 
and hold it up to the judgment of all who 
hear me. There is an early Italian story of 
an experienced citizen, who, when told by 
his nephew that he had been studying, at 
the University of Bologna, the science of 
right, said in reply, " You have spent your 
time to little purpose. It would have been 
better had you learned the science o^ might, 
for that is worth two of the other;" and 
the bystanders of that day all agreed that 
the veteran spoke the truth. I begin, 
sir, by assuming that honorable Senators 
will not act in this spirit — that they will 
not substitute might for right — that they 
will not wantonly and flagitiously discard 
any obligation, pledge, or covenant, be- 
cause they chance to possess the power; 
but that, as honest men, desirous to do 
right, they will confront this question. 

Sir, the proposition before you involves 
not merely the repeal of an existing law, but 
the infraction of solemn obligations origi- 
nally proposed and assumed by the South, 
after a protracted and embittered contest, 
as a covenant of peace — with regard 
to certain specified territory therein de- 
scribed, namely : " All that Territory 
ceded by France to the United States, un- 
der the name of Louisiana; " according 
to which, in consideration of the admis- 
sion into the Union of Missouri as a slave 
State, slavery was forever prohibited in all 
the remaining part of this Territory which 
lies north of 36 deg. 30 min. This ar- 



THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 



rangemont, between difleront sections I 
of the Union — the slave States of the ] 
first part and the free StatPs of the sec- j 
end part — though usually known as the | 
Missouri Compromise, was at the time ; 
styled a compact. In its stipulations for 
slavery, it was justly repugnant to the 
conscience of the North, and ought never 
to have been made ; but on that side it has 
been performed. And now the unper- 
formed outstanding obligations to Free- 
dom, originally proposed and assumed by 
the South, are resisted. 

Years have passed since these obliga- 
tions were embodied in the legislation of 
Congress, and accepted by the country. 
Meanwhile, the statesmen by whom they 
were framed and vindicated have, one by 
one, dropped from this earthly sphere. 
Their living voices cannot now be heard, to 
plead for the preservation of that Public 
Faith to which they were pledged. But 
this extraordinary lapse of time, with the 
complete fruition by one party of all the 
benefits belonging to it, under the compact, 
gives to the transaction an added and 
most sacred strength. Prescription steps 
in with new bonds, to confirm the oriwi- 
nal work, to the end that while men are 
mortal, controversies shall not be immor- 
tal. Death, with inexorable scythe, has 
mowed down the authors of this com- 
pact ; but, with conservative hour-glass, it 
has counted out a succession of years, 
which now defile before us, like so many 
sentinels, to guard the sacred landmark of 
Freedom. 

A simple statement of facts, derived 
from the journals of Congress and con- 
temporary records, will show the origin 
and nature of this compact, the influence 
by which it was established, and the obli- 
gations which it imposed. 

As early as 1818, at the first session of 
the fifteenth Congress, a bill was reported I 
to the House of Representatives, authori- | 
zing the people of the Missouri Territory } 
to form a Constitution and State Govern- i 
rnent, for the admission of such State 
into tho Union ; but, at that session, no I 
final action was had thereon. At the next I 
session, in February, 1819, the bill was ! 
again brought forward, when an eminent 
Representative of New York, whose life 
has been sj)ared till this last summer, Mr. \ 
James Tallmadge, moved a clause pro- 
hibiting any further introduction of slaves i 



into the proposed State, and securing free- 
dom to the children born within the State 
after its admission into the Union, on at- 
taining twenty-five years of age. This 
important proposition, which assumed a 
power not only to prohibit the ingress of 
slavery into the State itself, but also to 
abolish it there, was passed in the affirm- 
ative, after a vehemont debate of three 
days. On a division of the question, the 
first part, prohibiting the fiirthcr introduc- 
tion of slaves, was adopted by ^7 yeas to 
76 nays ; the second i)art, j)roviding for 
the entancipation of children, was adopted 
by 82 yeas to 78 nays. Other propositions 
to thwart the operation of these amend- 
ments were voted down, and on tlie 17th 
of Febiuary the bill was read a third time, 
and passed, with these important restric- 
tions. 

In the Senate, after debate, the provi- 
sion for the emancipation of children was 
struck out by 31 yeas to 7 nays; the 
other provision, against the fiirther intro- 
duction of slavery, was struck out by 22 
yeas to 16 nays. Thus emasculated, the bill 
was returned to the House, which, on 
March 2d, by a vote of 78 nays to 76 yeas, 
refused its concurrence. The Senate ad- 
hered to their amendments, and the House, 
by 78 yeas to 66 nays, adhered to their 
disagreement; and so at this session the 
Missouri bill was lost; and here was a 
temporary triumph of Freedom. 

Meanwhile, the same controversy was 
renewed on the bill pendinij at the same 
time for the organization of the Territory 
of Arkansas, then known as the southern 
part of the Territory of Missouri. The 
restrictions already adopted in the Mis- 
souri bill were moved hy Mr. Taylor, of 
New York, subsequently Speaker; but 
after at least six close votes, on the yeas 
and nays, in one of which the House was 
equally divided, 88 yeas to 88 nays, they 
were lost. Another proposition by Mr. 
Taylor, simpler in form, that slavery 
should not hereafter be introduced into 
this Territory, was lost by 90 nays to 86 
yeas; and the Arkansas bill on February 
25th was read the third time and passed. 
In the Senate, Mr. Burrill, of Rhode 
Island, moved, as an amendment, the i)ro- 
hibition of the fiirther introduction of sla- 
very into this Territory, which was lost by 
19 nays to 14 yeas. And thus, without 
any provision for Freedom, Arkansas 



SPEECH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 



^ 



M'as organized as a Territory; and here 
was a triumph of Slavery. 

At this same session, Alabama was ad- 
mitted as a slave State, without any restric- 
tion or objection. 

It was in the discussion on the Arkan- 
sas bill, at this session, that we find the 
earliest suggestion of a Compromise. De- 
feated in his eflbrts to prohibit slavery in 
this territory, Mr. Taylor stated that "he 
thought it important that some line should 
be designated beyond which slavery should 
not be permitted," and he moved its prohi- 
bition hereafter in all territories of the 
United States north of 36° 30', north lati- 
tude, without any exception of Missouri, 
which is north of this line. This proposi- 
tion, though withdrawn after debate, was at 
once welcomed by Mr. Livermore, of New 
Hampshire, "as made in the true spirit of 
compromise." It was opposed by Mr. 
Rhea, of Tennessee, on behalf of Slavery, 
who avowed himself against every restric- 
tion ; and also by Mr. Ogle, of Pennsyl- 
vania, on behalf of Freedom, who was 
"against any Compromise by which 
slavery, in any of the Territories, should 
be recognised or sanctioned by Congress." 
In this spirit it was opposed and sup- 
ported by others, among whom was Gen- 
eral Harrison, afterwards President of the 
United States, who " assented to the ex- 
pediency of establishing some such line 
of discrimination ;" but proposed a line 



"At the same time, I do not mean to ahandoa 
the policy to which I alluded in the commence- 
ment of my remarks. I think it but fair that both 
sections of the Union should be acconmiodated 
on this subject, with regard to which so much 
feeling has been manifested. The same great 
motives of policy which reconciled and harmoni- 
zed the jarring and discordant elements of our 
system originally, and which enabled the framers 
of our hapj)y Constitution to compromise the dif- 
ferent interests which then prevailed on this and 
other subjects, if properly cherished liy us, will 
enable us to achieve similar objects. If we meet 
upon i^rinciples of reciprocity, we cannot fail to 
do justice to all. // has alread)/ been avowed, hy 
gentlemen on this floor from the South and the West, 
that they ivill agree tipon a line whieh shall divide 
the slaveholding from the non-slnveholding States. 
It M thu proposition I am anxious to effect ; hut I 
wish to effect it hy some compact u-hich shall be bind- 
ing upon all parties, and all suhscquetit Legislatures; 
which cannot be changed, and will not fluctuate 
with the diversity of feeling and of sentiment to 
which this empire, in its march, must be destined. 
There is a vast and immense tract of country west 
of the x\Iississipi)i, yet to be settled, and intimately 
connected with the Northern section of the Union, 
upon which this compromise can be effected." 

The suggestions of Compromise were 
at this .time vain ; each party was de- 
termined. The North, by the prevailing 
voice of its representatives, claimed all for 
Freedom ; the South, by its potential 
command of the Senate, claimed all for 
Slavery. 

The report of this debate aroused the 
country. For the first time in our history, 
Freedom, after an animated struggle, hand 



due west from the mouth of the Des ! ;:^__h''i"^'_'i^d !^<^.^", ^^P^ in che^ck by 
Moines, thus constituting the northern, 
and not the southern boundary of Mis- 
souri, the partition line between Freedom 
and Slavery. 

But this idea of Compromise, though 
suggested by Taylor, was thus early adopt- 
ed and vindicated in this very debate, by 
an eminent character, Mr. Louis McLane, 
of Delaware, who has since held high office 
in the country, and enjoyed no common 
measure of public confidence. Of all the 
leading actors in these early scenes, he 
and Mr. Merckr alone aie yet spared. On 
this occasion he said : 



" The fixing of a line on the west of the 
jrississipjti, north of which slavery should not 



Slavery. The original policy of our Fathers 
in the restriction of slavery was sus- 
pended, and this giant wrong threatened 
to stalk into all the broad national domain. 
Men at the North were humbled and 
amazed. The imperious demands of 
slavery seemed incredible. Meanwhile, 
the whole subject was adjourned from Con- 
gress to the people. Through the press 
and at public meetings, an earnest voice 
was raised against the admission of Mis- 
souri into the Union without the restriction 
of slavery. Judges left the bench and 
clergymen the pulpit, to swell the indig- 
nant protest which went up from good 
men, without distinction of party or of 



be tolerated, had alicaya been with him a favorite ' P"I^l ' ' 
policy, and he hoped the day was not distant | The movement was not confined to a 
when, upon principles o^ fair compromise, it might ' k\\ persons, nor to a few States. A pub- 
constitutioually be effected. The present attempt He meeting at Trenton, in New Jersey, 
he regarded as premature." „,as followed by others in New York and 

After opposing the restriction on Mis- Philadelphia, and finally at Worcester, 
sourij he concluded by declaring : Salem, and Boston, where committees 



8 



THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 



were organized to rally the country. The j 
citizens of Balliinore, convened at the | 
court-house, wiih tlie Mayor in the chair, 
resolved that the future admission of slaves 
into the States hereafter formed west of tlie i 
Mississijjpi, ought to be prohihilcd by i 
Congress. Villages, towns, and cities, by I 
memorial, petition, and prayer, called upon , 
Congress to maintain the great principle 
of tlie prohibition of slavery. The same 
principle was also commended by the reso- | 
lutions of State Legislatures ; and Pennsyl- 
vania, inspired by the teachings of Fraidi- j 
Jin and the convictions of the respectable | 
denomination of f^riends, unanimously 
asserted at once the right and the duty of 
Congress to prohibit slavery west of the i 
Mississippi, and solemnly appealed to her I 
sister States "to refuse to covenant with i 
crime." New Jersey and Delaware fol- 
lowed, both also unanimously. Ohio as- 
serted the same principle ; so did also In- 
diana. The latter State, not content with j 
providing for the future, severely cen- ] 
sured one of its Senators, for his vote to , 
organize Arkansas without the prohibition j 
of slavery. The resolutions of New York 
were reinforced by the recommendation of , 
De Witt Clinton. i 

Amidst these excitements, Congress I 
came together in December, 1S19, taking 
possession of these Halls of the Capitol 
for th.' first time since their desolation by ; 
the British. On the day after the receipt 
of the President's Message, two several | 
committees of the House were consti- ' 
tuted, one to consider the a])plication of 
Maine, and the other of Missouri, to enter 
the Union as separate and independent 
States. With only ihe delay of a single 
day, the bill for the admission of Missouri 
was reported to the House without the re- 
striction of slavery; but, as if shrinking 
from the immediate discussion of the prcMt 
question it involved, afterwards, on the j 
motion of ]\Ir. Mkrcer, of Virginia, its I 
consideration was postponed for several ' 
weeks ; all which, be it observed, is in 
open contrast with the manner in which ' 
the present discussion has been precii)i- 
tatcd upon Congress. Meanwhile, the 
Maine bill, when reported to the House, 
was promi)tly acted upon, and sent to the 
Senate. 

In the interval between the report of 
the Missouri bill and its consideration by 
the House, a committee was constituted, 



on motion of Mr. Tatlou, of New York, 
to inf|uire into the expediency of pro- 
hibiting the introduction of slavery into 
the Territories west of the Mississippi. 
This committee, at the end of a fortnight, 
was discharged from further consideration 
of the subject, which, it was understood, 
would enter into the postponed debate 
on the Missouri bill. This early effort to 
interdict slavery in the Territories by a 
special law is worthy of notice, on account 
of some of the expressi()ns of opinion 
which it drew forth. In the course ol" his 
remarks, Mr. Taylor declared, that "he 
presumed there were no members — he 
knew of none — who doubted the consti- 
tutional power of Congress to impose 
such a restriction on the Territories. 

A generous voice from Viririnia recog- 
nised at once the right and duty of Con- 
gress. This was from Charles Fenton 
Mercer, who declared that " When the 
question proposed should come fairly be- 
fore the House, he should support the 
proposition. He should record his vote 
against suffering the dark cloud of inhu- 
manity, which now darkened his country, 
from rolling on beyond the peaceful shores 
of the Mississippi." 

At length, on the 26lh January, 1S20, 
the House resolved itself into Committee 
of the Whole on the Missouri Bill, and 
proceeded with its discussion, day by 
day, till the 28th of February, when it was 
reported back with amendments. But 
meanwhile the same question was present- 
ed to the Senate, where a conclusion was 
reached earlierthan in the House. A clause 
for the admission of Missouri was moved by 
way of lack to the Maine bill. To this an 
amendment was moved by Mr. Roberts, of 
Pennsylvania, prohibiting the further intro- 
duction of slavery into the State, which, 
alter a fortnight's debate, was defeated by 
27 nays to 16 yeas. 

The debate in the Senate was of unusual 
interest and splendor. It was especially 
illustrated by an effort of transcendent 
power from that great lawyer and orator, 
William Pinkney. Recently returned 
from a succession of missions to foreign 
courts, and at this time the acknowledged 
chiefof the American bar, particularly skill- 
ed in (juestions of constitutional law, his 
course as a Senator from Maryland was 
calculated to produce a profound impres- 
sion. In a speech which for two days drew 



SPEECH OF CIlAKLKb bUM:\-£R'. 

to this chamber an admiring throng, [ Compact or Compromise, the essential 
and at the time was fondly compared 
with the best examples of Greece and 



conditions of which were, the admission 
of Missouri as a State without any restric- 



Rome, he first authoritatively proposed and j lion of slavery ; and the prohibition of 



developed the Missouri Compromise. His 
masterly effort was mainly directed against 
the restriction upon Missouri, but it began 
and ended with the idea of compromise. 
"Notwithstanding," he says, "occasional 
appearances of rather an unfavorable de- 
scription, T have long since persuaded my- 
self that the JfmoMrt guestion, as it is call- 
ed, might be laid to rest, with innocence 
and safety, by some conciliatory Compro- 
mise at least, by which, as is our duty, we 
might reconcile the extremes of conflict- 
ing views and feelings, without any sacri- 
fice of constitutional principles." And he 
closed with the hope that the restriction 
on Missouri would not be pressed, but that 
the whole question "might be disposed of 
in a manner satisfactory to all, by a pos- 
itive prohibition of slavei-y in the Terri- 
tory to the north and west of Missouri." 

This authoritative proposition of Com- 
promise, from the most powerful advocate 
of the unconditional admission of Missou- 
ri, was made in the Senate on the 21st of 
January. From various indications, it 
seems to have found prompt favor in that 
body. Finally, on the 17th of February, 
the union of Maine and Missouri in one 
bill prevailed there, by 23 yeas to 21 nays. 
On the next day, Mr. Thomas, of Illi- 



slavery in all the remaining Territory of 
Louisiana north of 36 deg. 30 min. Janus- 
faced, with one front towards Freedom 
and another towards Slavery, this must not 
be confounded with the simpler proposi- 
tion of Mr. Taylor, at the last session, to 
prohibit slavery in all tiie territory north 
of 36 deg. 30 min., including Missouri. 
The compromise now brought forward — 
following the early lead of Mr. McLane — 
both recognised and prohibited slavery 
north of 36 deg. 30 min. Here, for the first 
time, these two opposite principles com- 
mingled in one legislative channel ; and 
it is immediately subsequent to this junc- 
tion that we discern the precise responsi- 
bility assumed by different parties. And 
now observe the indubitable and decisive 
fact. This bill, thus composed, containing 
these two elements — this double meas- 
ure — finally passed the Senate by a test 
vote of 24 yeas to 20 nays. The yeas em- 
braced every Southern Senator, except 
Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, and 
William Smith, of South Carolina. 

Mr. Butler, (interrupting.) Mr. Gail- 
lard, of South Carolina, voted with Mr. 
Smith. 

Mr. Sumner. No, sir. The Journal, 
which I now hold in my hand, shows that 



nois, who had always voted with the South I he voted for the Compromise. I repeat, 



against any restriction upon Missouri, in- 
troduced the famous clause prohibiting 
slavery north of 36 deg. 30 min., which 
now constitutes the eighth section of the 
Missouri act. An effort was made to in- 
clude the Arkansas Territory within this 
prohibition ; but the South united against 



that the yeas on this vital question em- 
braced every Southern Senator, except Mr. 
Macon and Mr. Smith. The nays em- 
braced every Northern Senator, except the 
two Senators from Illinois and one Sena- 
tor from Rhode Island, and one from New 
Hampshire. And this, sir, is the record of 



this extension of the area of Freedom, and i the first stage in the adoption of the Mis- 



it was defeated by 24 nays to 20 yeas. The 
prohibition, as moved by Mr. Thomas, 
then prevailed, by 34 yeas to only 10 nays. 
Among those in the afSrmative were both 
the Senators from each of the slave States, 
Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Dela- 
ware, Maryland, and Alabama, and also 
one of the Senators from each of the slave 
States, Mississippi and North Carolina, in- 
cluding in the honorable list the familiar 



souri Compromise. First openly announ- 
ced and vindicated on the floor of the Sen- 
ate, by a distinguished Southern states- 
man, it was forced on the North by an al- 
most unanimous Southern vote. 

While thinors had thus culminated in 
the Senate, discussion was still proceed- 
ing in the other House on the original 
Missouri bill. This was for a moment 
arrested by the reception from the Senate 



names of William Pinkney, James Brown, I of the Maine bill, embodying the Mis 

and William Rufus King. I souri Compromise. Upon this the debate 

This bill, thus amended, is the first j was brief and the decision prompt. But 

legislative embodiment of the Missouri] here, even at this stage, as at every other, a 



10 



THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 



Southern statesman intervenes. Mr. Smith, 
of Maryland, for many years an eminent 
Senator of that State, but at tliis timo a 
Representative, while opposing the restric- 
tion of Missouri, vindicated the piohibi- 
tion of slavery in the Territories, and thus 
practically accepted the Compromise : 

'• Mr. ri. J^MiTii said that he rose principally with 
a view to state his uiuU'rstanding of the jiroposed 
amendment, viz: That it retained tlie boundaries 
of Missouri as delineated in the bill ; that it pro- 
hibited the admission of slaves west of the west 
line of Missouri, and north of the north line; that 
it did not interfere with the Territory of Arkan- 
sas, or the uninhabited land west thereof, lie 
ihouyht Ihe projw.ntion not (xcrpiionabh-. but doubted 
the propriety of its forming^ a part of the bill. He 
considered the power of ("ongress over the Terri- 
tory as supreme, unlimited, before its admission ; 
that Congress could imjiose on its Territories any 
restriction it thought proper; that if citizens go 
into the Territories thus restricted, they cannot 
carry with them slaves. They will be without 
slaves, and will be educated with prejudices and 
habits such as v\ill exclude all desire, on their 
])art, to admit slavery when they shall become 
sufficiently numerous to be admitted as a JState. 
And this is the advantage proposed by the 
amendment." 

But the House was not disposed to 
abandon the substantial restriction of sla- 
very in Missouri, for vvliat seemed its un- 
substantial prohibition in an unsettled 
Territory. The Compromise was rejected, 
and the bill left in its original condition. 
This was done by large votes. Even the 
prohibition of slavery was thrown out by 
159 yeas to 18 nays, both the North and 
the South uniting against it; though, in 
this small but persistent minority, we find 
two Southern statesmen, Samuel Smith 
and Charles Fenton Mercer. The Senate, 
on receiving the bill back from the House, 
insisted on their amendments. The House 
in turn insisted on their disairreement. 
According to parliamentary usage, a Com- 
mittee of Conference between the two 
Houses was appoined. Mr. Thomas, of 
Illinois, Mr. Pinkney, of Maryland, and 
Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia, com- 
posed this important committee on the 
part of the Senate; and Mr. Holmes, of 
Maine, Mr. Taylor, of New York, Mr. 
Lowndes, of South Carolina, ]\Ir. Parker, 
of Massachusetts, and JMr. Kinsey, of 
New Jersey, on the ])art of the House. 

Meanwhile, the House had voted on 
the original Missouri bill. An amend- 
ment, peremptorily interdicting all slavery 
in the new State, was adopted by 94 



yeas to 86 nays ; and thus the bill passed 
the House, and was sent to the Senate, 
I INIarch 1st. Thus, after an e.xasperated 
\ and protracted discussion, the two Houses 
j were at a dead-lock. The double-headed 
I Missouri Compromise, was the ultimatum 
I of the Senate. The restriction of slavery 
in Missouri, involving, of course, its pro- 
hibition in all the unorganized Territories, 
was the ultimatum of the House.- 

At this stage, on the Sd of March, the 
Committee of Conference made their re- 
port, which was urged at once upon the 
House by Mr. Lowndes, the distinguished 
Representative from South Carolina, and 
one of her most precious sons. And 
here sir, at the mention of this name, still 
so fragrant among us, let me for one mo- 
ment stop this current of history, to express 
the tender admiration with which I am in- 
spired. Mr. Lowndes died before my 
memory of political events; but he is still 
endeared by the single utterance — ihat ihe 
Presidency is an office nevtr to be sought — 
which, by its beauty, shames the vileness 
of aspiration in our day, and will ever live 
as an amaranthine flower. Such a man 
on any occasion would be a host ; but he 
now threvv his great soul into the^work. 
He even objected to a motion to print 
the report, on the ground "that it would 
imply a determination in the House to 
delay a decision of the subject to-day, 
which he had hoped the House was fully 
prepared for." The question then came, 
on striking out the restriction in the Mis- 
souri bill. The report in the JMhtional In- 
telligencer says : 

" Mr. Lowndes spoke briefly in support of the 
Compromise recommended bj- the Committee of 
Conference, and urged with great earnestness the 
propriety of a decision which would restore tran- 
quillity to the country, which was demanded by 
e.Cerv consideration of discretion, of moderation, 
of wisdom, and of virtue. 

" Mr. Meuceu, of Virginia, followed on the same 
side with great earnestness, and had spoken about 
half an hour, when he was compelled by indispo- 
sition to resume his seat." 

Such efforts, pressed with Southern ar- 
dor, were not unavailing. In conformity 
with the report of the committee, the 
whole (juestion was forthwith put at rest. 
Maine and Missouri were each admitted 
into the Union as independent States. 
The restriction of slavery in Missouri was 
abandoned by a vote in the House of 90 
yeas to 87 nays ; and the prohibition of 



SPEECH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 



11 



slavery in all Territories north of 36 deg> 
30 min., exclusive of Missouri, was sub- 
stituted by a vote of 134 yeas to 42 nays. 
Amono-the distinoruished Southern names 

• T 

in the affirmative, are Louis McLane, of 
Delaware; Samuel Smith, of Maryland; 
William Lowndes, of South Carolina ; 
and Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia. 
The title of the Missouri bill was amend- 
ed in conformity with this prohibition, 
by adding the words, "and to prohibit 
slavery in certain Territories." The bills 
then passed both Houses without a di- 
vision ; and, on the morning of the 3d 
March, 1820, the Jfational Intelligencer 
contained an exulting article, entitled : 
"The Question Settled." 

Another paper, published in Baltimore, 
immediately after the passage of the Com- 
promise, vindicated it as a perpetual com- 
pact, which could not be disturbed. The 
language is so clear and strong that I will 
read it, although it has been already quoted \ 
by my able and most excellent friend from 
Ohio, [Mr. Chase :] 

"/i! is true the Compromncia supported only hy the 
letter of the Iom; rcpenlabh by the authority which 
enacted it; hut the circumstances of the case yive 
this law a moral force equal to that of a positive 
jyrovision of the Constitution ; and ice do not hazard 
anything by saying that the Constitution exists in its 
observance. Both parties have sacrificed much to 
conciliation. We xcish to see the compact kept in 
good faith, and we trust that a kind Providence 
will open the w.ay to relieve us of an evil which 
every good citizen deprecates as the supreme 
curse of the country." — Giles's Reqister. 

Sir, the distinguished leaders in this set- 
tlement were all from the South. As early 
as February, 1819, Louis McLane, of Del- 
aware, had urged it upon Congress, " by 
some compact binding upon all subsequent 
Legislatures." It was in 1820 brought for- 
ward and upheld in the Senate by William 
PiNKNEY, of Maryland, and passed in that 
body by the vote of every Southern Sen- 
ator except two, against the vote of every 
Northern Senator except four. In the 
House, it was welcomed at once by Sam- 
uel Smith, of Maryland, and Charles 
Fenton Mercer, of Virginia. The Com- 
mittee of Conference, through which it 
finallj prevailed, was filled, on the part of 
the Senate, with inflexible partisans of the 
South, such as might fitly represent the 
sentiments of its President, John Gail- 
lard, a Senator from South Carolina; on 
the part of the House, it was nominated by 



Henry Clay, the Speaker, and Represent- 
ative from Kentucky. This committee, 
thus constituted, drawing its double life 
from the South, was unanimous in favor of 
the Compromise. A private letter from 
Mr. PiNKNEY, written at the time, and pre- 
served by his distinguished biographer, 
shows that the report made by the com- 
mittee came from him : 

"The bill for the admission of Missouri into 
the Union (icit/iout restriction as to slavery) may 
be considered as past. That bill was scut back 
again this morning from the House, with the 
restriction as to Stavei-y. The senate voted to 
amend it by striking out the restriction, (27 to 
15,) and proposed, as another amendment, what 
I have all along been the advocate of a restriction 
upon the vacant territory to the north and. west, as 
to slavery. To-night the House of Representa- 
tives have aggreed to both of these amendments, 
in opposition to their former votes, and this aflair 
is settled. To-morrow we shall (of course) recede 
from our amendments as to I\Iaine, (our object 
being effected,) and both States will be admitted. 
This happy rrsidt has been aerompli.'<hed by the Con- 
ference, of which I was a. member on the part of the 
Senate, and of which I proposed the report ivhich ha» 
been- made.'' — ^]h('aton's, Life of Pinckney. 

Thus again the Compromise takes its 
life from the South. Proposed in the com- 
mittee by Mr. Pinkney, it was urged on the 
House of Representatives, with great ear- 
nestness, by Mr. Lowndes, of South Caro- 
lina, and Mr. Mercer, of Virginia ; and here 
again is the most persuasive voice of the 
South. When passed by Congress, it next 
came before the President, James Monroe, 
of Virginia, for his approval, who did not 
sign it till after the unanimous opinion, in 
writing, ofhis Cabinet, composed of John 
Quincy Adams, William H. Crawford, 
Smith Thompson, John C. Calhoun, and 
William Win — a majority of whom were 
Southern men — that the prohibition oi' 
slavery in the Territories was constitu- 
tional. Thus yet again the Compromise 
takes its life from the South. 

As the Compromise took its life from 
the South, so the South, in the judgment 
of its own statesmen at the time, and 
according to unquestionable facts, was 
the conquering party. It gained forth- 
with its darling desire, the first and essen- 
<ial stage in the admission of Missouri as a 
slave State, successfully consummated at 
the next session ; and sub.sequently the 
admission of Arkansas, also as a slave 
State. From the crushed and humbled 
North, it received more than the full con-^ 



12 



THE LANDMARK OF FPwEEDOM. 



sideration stipulated in its favor. On the ' 
side oi' tlie Xortli the contract has been 
more than executed. And now the South 
refuses to perform the part which it ori- 
ginally proposed and assumed in this trans- 
action. With the consideration in its j 
pocket, it repudiates the barfjain which it 
forced upon the country. This, sir, is a 
simple statement of the present question. 

A subtle German has declared, that he j 
could find heresies in the Lord's Prayer — ' 
and I believe it is only in this spirit that 
any flaw can be found in the existing obli- 
gatifins of this compact. As late as 1848, 
in the discussions of this body, the Sen- 
ator from Virginia, who usually sits be- 
hind me, [Mr. Mason,] but who is not 
now in his seat, while condemning it in 
many asjtects, says : 

"Yet as it was agreed to as a Compromise by I 
the Soutli for the sake of the Union, I icould he the 
last to disturb it." — Cony. Globe,, Appendix, 1st sess. 
?,Oth Cong., Vol. 19, p. 887. 

Even this distinguished Senator recog- 
nised it as an obligation which he would 
not disturb. And, though disbelieving 
the original constitutionality of the ar- 
rangement, he was clearly right. I know, 
sir, that it is in form simply a legislative 
act; but as the Act of Settlement in Eng- 
land, declaring the rights and liberties of 
the subject, and settling the succession of 
the Crown, has become a permanent part 
of the British Constitution, irrepealable by ; 
any coihmon legislation, so this act, under 
all the circumstances attending its passage, 
also by long acquiescence and the com- 1 
plete performance of its conditions by one 
party, has become a part of our tundamen- i 
tal law, irrepealable by any common legis- ' 
lation. As well might Congress at this 
moment undertake to overhaul the origi- 
nal purchase of Louisiana, as unconstitu- 
tional, and now, on this account, thrust 
away that magnificent heritage, with all 
its cities, States, and territories, teeming 
with civilization. The Missouri Compact, 
in its unperformed obligations to Free- 
dom, stands at this day as impregnable as 
the Louisiana i)urchase. 

I appeal to Senators about me, not to 
disturb it. I appeal to the Senators from 
Virginia, to keep inviolate the compact 
made in their behalf by James Barbour i 
and Charles Fenton Mercer. I appeal 
to the Senators from South Carolina, to 
guard the work of John Gaillard and | 



William Lowndes. I appeal to the 
Senators from Maryland, to uphold the 
Compromise which elicited the constant 
support of Samuel Smith, and was first 
tiiumphanily pressed by the unsurpassed 
eloquence of Pinkney. f appeal to the 
Senators from Delaware, to maintain the 
landmark of Freedom in the Territory of 
Louisiana, early espoused by Louis Mc- 
Lane. I aj)peal to the Senators from 
Kentucky, not to repudiate the pledges of 
Henry Clay. I aj)peal to the Senators 
from Alabama, not to break the agreement 
sanctioned by the earliest votes in the 
Senate oftheii late most cherished fellow- 
citizen, William Rufus King. Sir, I have 
heard of an honor that felt a stain like a 
wound. If there be any such in this cham- 
ber — as surely there is — it will hesitate 
to take upon itself the stain of this trans- 
action. 

Sir, Congress may now set aside this 
obligation, repudiate this plighted faith, 
annul this compact; and some of you, 
forgetful of the majesty of honest dealing, 
in order to support slavery, may con- 
sider it advantageous to use this power. 
To all such let me commend a familiar 
story : An eminent leader in antiquity, 
Themistocles, once announced to the 
Athenian Assembly, that he had a scheme 
to propose, highly beneficial to the State, 
but which could not be expounded to the 
many. Aristides, surnamed the Just, was 
appointed to receive the secret, and to re- 
port upon it. His brief and memorable 
judgment was, that, while nothing could 
be more advantajieous to Athens, noth- 
ing could be more unjust; and the Athe- 
nian multitude, responding at once, re- 
jected the proposition. It appears thai 
it was proposed to burn the combined 
Greek fleet, which then rested in the secu- 
rity of peace in a neighboring sea, and 
thus confirm the naval supremacy of 
Athens. A similar proposition is now 
brought before the American Senate. You 
are asked to destroy a safeguard of Free- 
dom, consecrated by solemn compact, 
under which the country is now reposing 
in the security of peace, and thus confirm 
the supremacy of Slavery. To this insti- 
tution and its partisans the proposition 
may seem to be advantageous ; but noth- 
ing can be more unjust. Let the judg- 
ment of the Athenian multitude be yours. 

This is wliati have to say upon this head. 



SPEECH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 



18 



I now pass to the second branch of the j in this Colony, upon the most ?afe and equitiible 

footing for the masters and tlicmselves." — Am. 



argument 



Archives, 4th Series, Vol. I, p. 11. "^5. 



II. Mr. President, it is not only as an in- The soul of Virginia, during this period, 
fraction of solemn compact, embodied in found also fervid utterance tliroufrh iai- 
ancient law, that I arraign this bill. I ar- ! ferson, who, by precocious and !mmor- 
raign it also as a flagrant and extravagant | tal words, has enrolled himself amono- 



departure from the oiiginal policy of our 
fathers, consecrated by their lives, opin- 
ions, ai?d acts. 

And here, sir, bear with me in a brief re- 
cital of unquestionable facts. At the period 



the earliest Abolitionists of tlie country. 
In his address to the Virginia Convention 
of 1774, he openly avowed, while vindi- 
cating the rights of British America, that 
"the abolition of domestic slavery is the 



of the Declaration of Independence, there | greatest object of desire in these Colonies, 
was upwards of half a million colored | Wi^re z7 was unhappihj introduced in their 



persons in slavery throughout the United 
Colonies. These unhappy people were 
originally stolen from Africa, or were the 
children of those who had been stolen, 
and, though distributed throughout the 
whole country, were to be found in 
largest number in the Southern States. 
But the spirit of Freedom then prevailed 
in the land. The fathers of the Republic, 
leaders in the war of Independence, were 
struck with the inconsistency of an appeal 
for their own liberties, while holding in 



infant slate." And then again, in the Dec- 
laration of Independence, he embodied 
sentiments, which, when practically ap- 
plied, will give Freedom to every Slave 
throughout the land. "We hold these 
truths to be self-evident," says our coun- 
try, speaking by the voice of Jefterson, 
"that all men are created equal — that they 
are endowed with certain inalienable 
rights — that among these are life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness." And again, 
in the Congress of the Confederation, he 



bondage their fellow-men, only "guilty of j brought forward, as early as 1784, a reso 

lulion to exclude Slavery from all the Ter- 
ritory "ceded or to be ceded" by the States 
of the Federal Government, including the 
whole territory now covered by Tennes- 
see, Mississippi, and Alabama. Lost at 
first by a single vote only, this measure was 
renewed in a more restricted form, at a 
subsequent day, by a son of Massachusetts, 
and in 1787 was finally confirmed in the 
Ordinance of the Northwestern Territory, 
by a unanimous vote of the States. 

Thus early and distinctly do we discern 
the Anti-Slavery character of the found- 
ers of our Republic, and iheir determina- 
tion to place the National Government, 
within the sphere of its jurisdiction, 
openly, actively, and perpetually, on the 
side of Freedom. 

The National Constitution was adopted 
in 1788. And here we discern the same 
spirit. The emphatic words of the Dec- 
laration of Independence, which our coun- 
try took upon its lips as baptismal vows, 
when it claimed its place among the na- 
tions of the earth, were not forgotten. 
The preamble to the Constitution renews 
them, when it declares its object to be, 
among other things, " to establish justice, 
to promote the general welfare, and to se- 
cure the blessings of liberty to ourselves 



a skin not colored like their own." The 
same conviction animated the hearts of the 
peopje, whether at the North or South. 
In a town meeting, at Danbury, Connec- 
ticut, held on the r2th of December, 1778, 
the following declaration was made : 

" It is with singular pleasure we note the second 
article of the Association, in which it is agreed to 
import no more negro slaves, as we cannot but 
think it a palpable absurdity so loudly to complain 
of attempts to enslave «s while we are actually 
enslaA'ing others. — Am. Archives, 4th Series, Vol. I, 
p. 1038. 

The South responded in similar strains. 
At a meeting in Darien, Georgia, in 1775, 
the following important resolution was put 
forth : 

" To show the world that we are not influenced 
by any contracted or interested motives, but by a 
general philanthropy for all mankind, of whatever 
climate, language, or complexion, we hereby declare 
our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural 
practice of Slavery in (however the uncultivated 
state of the country or other specious arguments 
may plead for it) a practice founded in injustice and 
cruelty, and highly dangerous to our liberties as ivell 
as lives, debasing part of our fellow-creatvres below 
men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of the rest 
and laying the basis of that liberty we contend 
for, and which we pray the Almighty to continue 
to the latest posterity, upon a very wrong founda- 
tion. We therefore resoh-e at all times to use our 
utmost endeavors for the manumission of our slaves 



14 



TFIE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 



and posterity." Thus, according to un- ' already, on a former occasion, called 
deniable words, the Constitution was or- attention, but wiiich is well worthy of 
dained, not to establish, secure, or sane- | perpetual memory. At the time that 
lion Slavery — not to promote the special i this great chief took Ids first oath to sup- 
interest of slaveholders — not to make port the Constitution of the United States, 
Slavery national in any way, form, or man- : the national ensign iiowhcre within the 
ner — not to foster this <rreat wrong, hni \ national Territory covered a single slave. 
to "establish justice," " promote the gen- On the sea, an execrable jjiracy, the trade 
eral welfare," and "secure the blessings of in slaves, was still, to the national scandal, 
Liberty." Tiie discreditable words Slave tolerated under the national flag.* In the 
and Slavery were not allowed to find a | States, as a sectional institution, beneath 
place in this instrument, while a clause was the shelter of local laws, slavery unhap- 
subsequently added by way of amendment, pily found a home. But in the only Ter- 
and, therefore, according to the rules of ritories at this time belonging to the Na- 
int(!rpretation. particularly revealing the tion, the broad region of the Northwest, it 
sentiments of the founders, which is cal- had already, by the Ordinance of Freedom, 



culated, like the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, if practically applied, to carry Free- 
dom to all within the sphere of its intlu- 



been made impossible, even before the 
adoption of the Constitution. The Dis- 
trict of Columbia, with its Fatal Dowry, 



ence. It was specifically declared, that had not yet been acquired. 



" no person shall be deprived of life, Z?ier- 
/y.orproperty, withoutdue process of law;" 



Entering upon his high duties, Wash- 
inutoij, himself an Abolitionist, was sur- 



that is, without due presentment, indict- rounded by men, who, by their lives and 
ment, or other judicial proceeding. Here | declared opinions, were pledged to war- 
is an express guard of personal Liberty, i fare with Slavery. There was John 
and an express interdict upon itsinvasion j Adams, the Vice President — great vindi- 
anywhere within the national jurisdiction. ' cator and final negotiator of our national 
It is evident, from the debates on the j independence — whose soul, llaming with 
National Constitution, that slavery, like ! Freedom, broke forth in the early decla- 
the slave trade, was regarded as tempo- j ration, that " consenting to slavery is a 
rary ; and it seems to have been supposed i sacrilegious breach of trust," and whose 
by many that they would both disappear ' immitigable hostility to this wrong has 
together. Nor do any words employed in been made immortal in his descendants, 
our day denounce it with an indignation By his side, also, was a companion in arms 
more burning than those which glowed on and attached friend, the yet youthful and 
the lips of the Fathers. Early in the Con- | "incomparable" Hamilton — fit companion 
vention, Governeur Morris, of Pennsylva- I in early fame and genius with that darling of 
nia, broke forth in the language of an English history, Sir Phili]> Sydney, to whom 



Abolitionist : " He never would concur 
in upholding domestic slavery. It was a 



the latter epithet has been reserved- 
who, as a member of the Abolition Society 



nefarious institution. It was the curse of of New York, had only recently united in 
Heaven." In another mood, and with ' a solemn petition for those who, " though 
mild, juridical phrase, J\Ir. Madison free by the laios of God, are held in slavery 



"thought it wrong to admit in the Consti- 
tution the idea of property in man." And 
Washington, in letters written near this 
period — which completely describe the 
aims of an Abolitionist — avowed " that it 
was among his first wishes to see some 
plan adopted by which slavery may be 
abolished by law," and that to this end 
"his suffrage should not be wantinor." 

In this spirit was the National Constitu- 
tion adopted. In this spirit the National 
Government was first organized under 
Washington. And here there is a fact 
of peculiar significance, to which I have 



by the' laws of the State." There, too, was 
a noble spirit, of spotless virtue, and com- 
manding influence, the ornament of human 
nature, who, like the sun, ever held an 
unerring course, John Jay. Filling the 
important post of Minister of Foreign Af- 
fairs under the Confcdc^ration, he found 
time to organi/-e the Abolition Society of 
New York, and to act as its President, 
until by the nomination of Washington he 
became Chief Justice of the United States. 
In his sight, slavery was an " iniquity" — 
" a sin of crimson dye," against which 
ministers of the gospel should testify, and 



SPEECH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 

which the Government should seek in ev 
ery way to abolish. " Were I in the Legisla 
ture," he wrote, " I would present a btll for | land of F 
the purpose with great care, and I would 
never cease moving it till it became a law 
or I ceased to be a member. Till America 
comes into this measure, her prayers to 
Heaven will be impious." By such men 
was Washington surrounded, while from 
his own Virginia came the voice of Patrick 
Henry, amidst confessions that he was a 
master of slaves, crying, " I will not, I can- 
not justify it. However culpable my con- 
duct, I will so far pay my devoir to virtue 
as to own the excellence and rectitude of 
her precepts, and lament my want of con- 
formity to them." Such words as these, 
fitly coming from our leaders, belong to 
the true glories of the country : 

" While we such precedents can boast at home. 
Keep thy Fabricius and thy Cato, Rome ! " 

The earliest Congress under the Con- 
stitution adopted the Ordinance of Free- 
dom for the Northwestern Territory, and 
thus ratified the prohibition of Slavery in 
all the existing Territories of the Union. 
In the list of those who sanctioned this act 
were men fresh from the labors of the Con- 
vention, and therefore familiar with its 
policy. But there is another voice which 
bears testimony in the same direction. 
Among the petitions presented to the first 
Congress, was one from the Abolition So- 
ciety of Pennsylvania, signed by Benja- 
min Franklin, as President. This vener- 
able votary of Freedom, who throughout 
a long life had splendidly served his coun- 
try at home and abroad — who, as states- 
man and philosopher, had won the admi- 
ration of mankind — who had ravished the 
lightning from the skies and the sceptre 
from the tyrant — whose name, signed to 
the Declaration of Independence, gave 
added importance even to that great in- 
strument, and then again signed to the 
Constitution of the United States, filled ii 
with the charm of wisdom — in whom, 
more than in any other man, the true spirit 
of American Institutions, at once practical 
and humane, was embodied — who knew 
intimately the purposes and aspirations of 
the founders — this veteran statesman, then 
eighty-four years of age, appeared at the 
bar of that Congress, whose powers he had 
helped to define and establish, and, by the 



15 

countenance the restoration of liberty to 
those unjiappy men, who alone, in this 
reedom, are degraded into per- 
petual bondage," and "that it would step 
to the very verge Of the power vested in it 
for DISCOURAGING every species of 
traffic in the persons of our icilow men." 
Only a short time after uttering this prayer, 
the patriot sage descended to the tomb ; 
but he seems still to call upon Congress, 
in memorable words, io step to the very 
verge of the powers vested in it to discourage 
slavery; and this prayer, now sounding 
from the tomb of Franklin, |)roclaims the 
true national policy of the Fathers. Not 
encouragement, but discouragement of 
slavery, not its nationalization, but its de- 
nationalization, was their rule. 

Tiie memorial of Franklin, with other 
memorials of a similar character, was re- 
ferred to a committee, and much debated 
in the House, which finally sanctioned 
the following resolution, and directed the 
same to be entered upon its journals, viz : 

" That Congress have no authority to interfere 
in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment 
of them, within any of the States ; it remamint/ 
u-ith the several States to provide any reyuladons 
therein, which humanity and true policy may require." 

This resolution, declaring the principle 
of non-intervention by Congress with sla- 
very in the States, was adopted by the 
same Congress which had solemnly af- 
firmed the prohibition of slavery in all 
the existing territory of the Union; and 
not only by the same Congress, but at the 
same session, so that one may be regarded 
as the complement of the other. And 
it is on these double acts, at the first organ- 
ization of the Government, and the record- 
ed sentiments of the founders, that I take 
my stand, and challenge all question. 

At this time there was strictly no divi- 
ding line in the country between Anti- 
Slavery and Pro-Slavery. The Anti-Slavery 
sentiment was thoroughly national, broad 
and general, pervading alike all parts of 
the Union, and uprising from the com- 
mon heart of the entire people. The Pro- 
Slavery interest was strictly personal and 
pecuniary, and had its source simply in the 
self-interest of individual slaveholders. It 
contemplated slavery only as a domestic 
institution — not as a political element — 
and merely stipulated for its security where 



last political act of his long life, solemnly it actually existed within the States, 
entreated " that it would be pleased to Sir, the original policy of the country, 



16 



THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 



begun under the Confederation, and rec- 
ognised at the initiation of the new Gov- 
ernmc'iit, is clear and unmistakable. Coin- 
])endiously cxitresscd, it was iion-inlervcn- 
iion by Conirress wif/i slavery in ihe Slates, 
and its prohibition in all the national domain. 
In this way, the discordant fcfliiigs on 
this subject were reconciled. Slavoinas- 
ters were left at home in their respective 
States, under tiie protection of local laws, 
to hug slavery, without any interference 
from Congress, while all opposed to it were 
exempted from any responsibility therefor 
in the national domain. This, sir, is the 
common ground on which our political 
fabric was reared ; and I do not hesitate 
to say that it is the only ground on which 
it can stand in permanent peace. 

It is beyond question, sir, that our Con- 
stitution was framed by the lovers of Hu- 
man Rights ; that it was animated by their 
divine spirit; that the institution of sla- 
very was regarded by them with aversion, 
so that, though covertly alluded to, it 
was not named in the instrument ; that, 
accordingf to the debates in the Conven- 
tion, they refused to give it any " sanc- 
tion," and looked forward to the certain 
day when it would be obliterated from 
the land. But the original policy of 
the Government did not long prevail. 
The generous sentiments which filled the 
early patriots, giving to them historic 
grandeur, gradually lost their power. 
The blessings of freedom being already 
secured to themselves, the freemen of the 
land grew indifferent to the freedom of 
others. They ceased to think of the 
slaves. The slave-masters availed them- 
selves of this indifference, and, though 
few in numbers, compared with the non- 
slaveholders, even in the slave States, 
(according to the late census they are 
fewer than 300,000,) they have, under the 
influence of an imagined self-interest, by 
the skillful tactics of party, and especially 
by an unhesitating, persevering union 
among themselves — swaying, by turns, 
both the great political parties — succeed- 
ed, through a long succession of years, in 
obtaining the control of the National Gov- 
ernment, biMiding it to their purposes, 
compelling it to do their will, and imposing 
upon it a policy friendly to Slavery; offen- 
sive to Freedom only, and directly opposed 
to the sentiments of its founders. Our Re- 
public has swollen in population and pow- 



er; but it has shrunk in character. It is 
not now what it was at the beginning, a 
Republic merely permitting, while it re- 
gretted slavery ; tolerating it only where it 
could not be removed, and interdicting it 
where it did not exist — but a mighty Prop- 
agandist, openly favoririir and vindicating 
it; visiting, also, with displeasure all who 
oppose it. 

Sir, our country earlv reached heights 
which it could not keep. Its fall was gen- 
tle but complete. At the session of Con- 
gress immediately following the ratifica- 
tion of the Prohibition of Slavery in the 
national domain, a transfer of the territory 
now constituting Tennessee was accept- 
ed from North Carolina, (April 2, 1790,) 
loaded with the express condition " that 
no regulation made, or to be made, should 
tend to emancipate slaves; " a formal pro- 
vision, which, while admitting the power 
of Congress over slavery in the Territories, 
I waived the prevailing policy of executing 
\ it. This was followed, in 1798, by the 
transfer from Georgia of the region be- 
\ tween her present western limit and the 
Mississippi, under a similar condition. In 
both these cases, an apology may be found 
in the very terms of the transfers, and in 
the fact that the region constituted a part 
I of two States where slavery actually exist- 
I ed; though it will be confessed that even 
j here there was a descent from that summit 
j of Freedom on which the Nation had so 
proudly rested : 

'-From morn 

To noon he fell; from no<m to dewy eve — 
A summer's day, and with the .setting sun 
Drop'd from the zenith, like a falling star." 

But, without tracing this downward 
course fhrouiifh its successive statfes, let 
me refer to facts, which too palpably 
reveal the abyss that has been reached. 
Early in our history, no man was dis- 
qualified for public office by reason of his 
o])inions on this subject; and this con- 
dition continued for a long period. As 
late as 18*21, John W. Taylor, Represent- 
ative from New York, who had pressed 
with so much energy, not merely the pro- 
hibition of Slavery in the Territories, but 
its restriction in the State of Missouri, 
was elected to the chair of Henry Clay, as 
Speaker of the other House. It is need- 
less to add, that no determined sup- 
porter of the VVilmot Proviso at this day 
could expect that eminent trust. An ar- 



SPEECH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 



17 



roorant and unrelentincr ostracism is now 
applied, not only to all who express them- 
selves against slavery, but to every man 
who will not be its menial. A novel test 
for office has been introduced, which 
would have excluded all the Fathers of 
the Republic — even Washington, Jeffer- 
son, and Franklin. Yes, sir; startling it 
may be, but indisputable. Could these 
illustrious men descend from their realms 
above, and revisit the land which they had 
nobly dedicated to freedom, they could 
not, with their well-known and recorded 
opinions against slavery, receive a nomi- 
nation for the Presidency from either of 
the old political parties. Nor could 
John Joy, our first Chief Justice, and 
great exemplar of judicial virtue — who 
hated slavery as he loved justice — be ad- 
milted to resume those duties with which 
his name on earth is indissolubly asso- 
ciated. To such lowest deep has our 
Government descended. 

These things prepare us to comprehend 
the true character of the change with re- 
gard to the Territories. In 1787, all the 
existing national domain was promptly 
and unanimously dedicated to Freedom, 
without opposition or criticism. The in- 
terdict of slavery then covered every inch 
of soil belonging to the National Govern- 
ment. Louisiana, an immense region 
beyond the bounds of the original States, 
was subsequently acquired, and in 1820, 
after a vehement struggle, which shook 
the whole land, discomfited Freedom was 
compelled, by a dividing line, to a par- 
tition with Slavery. This arrangement, 
which, in its very terms, was exclusively 
applicable to a particular territory pur- 
chased from France, has been accepted 
as final down to the present session of 
Congress; but now, sir, here in 1854, 
Freedom is suddenly summoned to sur- 
render even her hard-won moiety. Here 
are the three stages : at the first, all 
is consecrated to Freedom ; at the 
second, only half; while at the third, all 
is to be opened to Slavery. Thus is the 
original policy of the Government abso- 
lutely reversed. Slavery, which, at the 
beginning, was a sectional institution, 
with no foothold anywhere on the nation- 
al territory, is now exalted as a national 
institution, and all our broad domain is 
threatened by its blighting shadow. 



Thus much for what I have to say, at 
this time, of the original policy, conse- 
crated by the lives, opinions, and acts of 
our Fathers. Summoning to my side 
the majestic forms of these civil heroes, 
whose firmness in council was only 
equalled by the firmness of Washington 
in war, I might leave the cause in their 
care. But certain reasons are adduced 
for the proposed departure from their 
great example, and, though these seem of 
little validity, yet I would not pass them 
in silence. 

The Prohibition of Slavery in the Terri- 
tories is assailed, as beyond the power of 
Congress, and an infringement of the lo- 
cal sovereignty. On this account it i?, 
at this late day, pronounced unconstitu- 
tional. Now, without considering mi- 
nutely the sources from which the power 
of Congress over the national domain is 
derived — whether from the express grant 
in the Conslitution to make rules and 
regulations for the government of the 
Territory, or from the power, necessarily 
implied, to govern territory acquired by 
conquest or purchase — it seems to me 
impossible to deny its existence, without 
invalidating a large portion of the legisla- 
tion of the country, from the adoption of 
the Constitution down to the present day. 
This power was asserted before the Con- 
stitution. It was not denied or prohibited 
by the Constitution itself It has been 
exercised from the first existence of the 
Government, and has been recognised by 
the three departments — the Executive, the 
Legislative, and the Judicial. Precedents 
of every kind are thick in its support. In- 
deed, the very bill now before us, assumes 
a control of the territory clearly inconsist- 
ent with those principles of sovereignty, 
which are said to be violated by a Con- 
gressional prohibition of slavery. 

Here are provisions, determining the 
main features in the Government — the 
distribution of powers in the Executive, 
the Legislative, and Judicial departments, 
and the manner in which they shall be 
respectively constituted — securing to the 
President, with the consent of the Senate, 
the appointment of the governor, the sec- 
retary, and the judges, and to the people 
the election of the legislature — ordaming 
the qualifications of voters, the salaries of 
the public officers, and the daily compen- 
sation of the members of the legislature. 



18 



THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 



Surely, if Con^rrcss may establish those 
provisions, without any interference with 
tim riijiits of territorial soverei^rnty, it is 
absurd to say that it may not also prohibit 
slavery. 

But there is in the very bill an express 
prohibition on the Territory, borrowed 
from the Ordinance of 1787, and repeated 
in every act organizinfj a Territory, or even 
a new State, down to the present time, 
wherein it is expressly declared, that "no 
tax shall be imposed upon the property of 
the United States." Now, liere is a clear 
and unquestionable restraint upon the 
sovereignty of Territories and States, 
The public lands of the United States, 
situated within an organized Territory or 
State, cannot be regarded as the instru- 
ments and means necessary and proper to 
execute the sovereign powers of the na- 
tion, like fortifications, arsenals, and navy 
yards. They are strictly in the nature of 
private proptrtij of the nation, and as such, 
unless exempted by the foregoing prohibi- 
tion, would clearly be within the field of 
local taxation, liable, like the lands of 
other jiroprietors, to all customary bur- 
dens and incidents. Mr. Justice Wood- 
bury has declared, in a well-considered 
judgment, that " where the United Slates 
own land situated within the limits of par- 
ticular States, and over which they have 
no cession of jurisdiction, for objects ei- 
ther special or general, little doubt exists 
that the rights and remedies in relation to 
it are usually the same as a])[)ly to other 
landholders within the States." — (United 
States V.S., 1 Woodbury and Minot, p. 76.) 
I assume, then, that without this prohibi- 
tion these lands would be lial)l(; to taxa- 
tion. Does any one question this? No- 
body. The conclusion then follows, that 
by this prohibition you j)ropose to deprive 
the present Territory, as you have deprived 
other Territories — aye, and States — of an 
essential portion of its sovereignty. 

And th(!se, sir, are not vain words. 
The Supreme Court of the United States 
have given great prominence to the sover- 
eign right of taxation in the States. In the 
case of Providence Hank vs. Pittinan, 4 
Peters, 514, they declare — 

"Tliat the taxing power is of vital importance; 
that it is fnufntial to the eiislencf of Government ; 
that the rellnciuisliment of such power is never to 
be assumed;" 

And again, in the case of Dobbins vs. 



Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Peters, 
447, they say — 

'Taxation is a sacred right, e^ssential to the ex- 
istence of Government — un iucident of sovereignty. 
The right of legishition is co-cxtcnsive with the 
incident to attach it upon all jicrsons and prop- 
erty within the jurisdiction of the State." 

Now, I call upon Senators to remark, 
that this sacred right, said to be essential 
to the very existence of Government, is 
abridged in the bill before us. 

For myself, I do iif)t doidtt the power of 
Congress to fasten this restriction upon 
the Territory, and afterwards upon the 
State, as has been always done ; but I am at 
a loss to see on what grounds this rt'striction 
can be placed, which will not also support 
the prohibition of slavery. The former is an 
unquestionable infringement of sovereign- 
ty, as declared by our Supreuie Court, far 
more than can be asserted of the latter. 

I am umvilling to admit, sir, that the 
prohibition of slavery in the Territories is 
in any just sense an infringement of the 
local sovereignty. Slavery is an infraction 
of the immutable law of nature, and, aa 
such, cannot be considered a natural inci- 
dent to any sovereignty, especially in a 
countty which has solemnly declared, in 
its Declaration of Independence, the in- 
alienable right of all men to life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of ha[>])iness. In an age 
of civilization and in a land of rights, sla- 
very may still be tolerated in fac't ; but its 
prohibition, witliin a luunicipal jurisdic- 
tion, bv the Government thereof, as by one 
of the States of the Union, cannot be con- 
sidered an infraction of natural rights; 
nor can its prohibition by Congress in the 
Territories be regarded as an infringe- 
ment of the local sovereignty, founded, as 
it must be, on natural rights. 

But another argument is pressed, most 
fallacious in its character. It is asserted 
that, inasmuch as the Territories were ac- 
quired by the common treasure, they are 
the common properly of tlie whole Union; 
and, therefore, n« citizen can be prevented 
from moving into them with his slaves, 
without an infringement oftlie equal rights 
and privileges which belong to him as a 
citizen of the United States. But, it is 
admitted that the people of this very Ter- 
ritory, when organized as a State, may ex- 
clude slaves, and in this way abridge an 
asserted right founded on the common 
property in the Territoiy. Now, if this 



SPEECH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 



19 



can be done by the few thousand settlers 
who constitute the State Government, tlie 
whole argument founded on the acquisi- 
tion of the Territories, by a common treas- 
ure, seems futile and evanescent. 

But this argument proceeds on an as- 
sumption which cannot stand. It assumes 
that slavery is a national institution, and 
that property in slaves is recognised by 
the Constitution of the United States. 
Nothing can be more false. By the judo-- 
ment of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and also by the principles of the 
common law. Slavery is a local municipal 
Institution, which derives its support exclu- 
sively from local municipal laws, and be- 
yond the sphere of these laws it ceases to 
^xist, except so far as it may be preserved 
3y the clause for the rendition of fugitives 
from labor. Madison thought it wronar to 
idmit into the Constitution the idea that 
:here can be property in man ; and I re- 
oice to believe that no such idea can be 
found there. The Constitution resrards 
slaves always as " persons," with the rights 
af " persons," never as property. When 
it is said, therefore, that every citizen may 
enter the national domain with his prop- 
erty, it does not follow, by any rule of 
logic or of law, that he may carry his 
slaves. On the contrary, he can only 
carry that property which is admitted to be 
such by the universal law of nature, writ- 
ten by God's own finger on the heart of 
man. 

Again : The relation of master and slave 
is sometimes classed with the domestic 
relations. Now, while it is unquestionably 
among the powers of any State, within its 
own jurisdiction, to change the existing 
relation of husband and wife, and to es- 
tablish polygamy, I presume no person 
would contend that a polygamous hus- 
band, resident in one of the States, 
would be entitled to enter the national 
Territory with his harem — his property, if 
you please — and there claim immunity. 
Clearly, when he passes the bounds of that 
local jurisdiction, which sanctions polyg- 
amy, the peculiar domestic relation would 
cease ; and it is precisely the same with 
slavery. 

Sir, I dismiss these considerations. 
The prohibition of slavery in the Terri- 
tory of Nebraska stands on foundations of 
idamant, upheld by the early policy of 
the Fathers, by constant precedent, and 



time-honored compact. It is now in your 
power to overturn it; you may remove 
the sacred landmark, and open the 
whole vast domain to Slavery. To you is 
committed this high prerogative. Our 
fathers, on the eve of the Revolution, set 
forth in burning words, among their griev- 
ances, that George III, " in order to keep 
open a market where men should be 
bought and sold, had prostituted his neg- 
ative for suppressing every legislative at- 
tempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable 
commerce." Sir, like the English mon- 
arch, you may now prostitute your power 
to this same purpose. But you cannot es- 
cape the judgment of the world, nor the 
doom of history. 

It will be in vain, that, while doing this 
thing, you plead, in apology, the princi- 
ple of self-gove?-nme7it , which you profess 
to recognise in the Territories. Sir, this 
very principle, when truly administered, 
secures equal rights to all, without dis- 
tinction of color or race, and makes sla- 
very impossible. By no rule of justice, 
and by no subtlety of political metaphys- 
ics, can the right to hold a fellow-man in 
bondage be regarded as essential to self- 
government. The inconsistency is too fla- 
grant. It is apparent on the bare state- 
ment. It is like saying iwo and two make 
three. In the name of liberty you open 
the door to slavery. With professions of 
Equal Rights on the lips, you trample on 
the rights of Human Nature. With a kiss 
upon the brow of that fair Territory, you 
betray it to wretchedness and shame. 
Well did the patriot soul exclaim, in bitter 
words, wrung out by bitter experience : 
" Oh Liberty ! what crimes are done in thy 
name !" 

In vain, sir, you will plead, that this 
measure proceeds from the North, as has 
been suggested by the Senator from Ken- 
tucky, [Mr. Dixon.] Even if this were 
true, it would be no apology. But, precip- 
itated as this bill has been upon the Sen- 
ate, at a moment of general calm, and in 
the absence of any controlling exigency, 
and then hurried to a vote in advance of 
the public voice, as if fearful of arrest, it 
cannot be justly called the offspring of any 
popular sentiment. In this respect it dif- 
fers widely from the Missouri prohibition, 
which, after solemn debate, extending 
through two sessions of Congress, and 
ample discussion before the people, was 



20 



THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 



adopted. Certainly there is, as yet, no ev- 
idence that this measure, though support- 
ed by Nortliern men, proceeds from that 
Northern sentiment which is to ho found, 
stroncr and fresh, in the schools, the 
churches, and homes of the people. Pop- 
uli omnes ad aquilonf.m /)os?7?' Ijberintem 
qiKindnm spirant. And could this scheme 
be now submitted -to the awakened mil- 
lions whose souls have been truly ripoii'Ml 
under Northern skies, it would be branded 
at once with an indi^mant and undying 
condemnation. 

I3ut the race of men, " white slaves of 
the North," described and despised by a 
Southern statesman, is not yet extinct 
there, sir. It is one of the melancholy to- 
kens of the pf)wer of slavery, under our 
political system, and especially through 
the operations of the National Govern- 
ment, thiit it loosens and destroys the char- 
acter of Northern men, exerting its subtle 
inlluonce even at a distance — like the black 
niairnetic mountain in the Arabian story, 
under whose irresistible attraction the iron 
bolts, which held together the strong tim- 
bers of a stately ship, securely floating on 
the distant wave, were drawn out, till the 
whole fell apart, and became a disjointed 
wreck. Alas ! too often those principles, 
which give consistency, individuality, and 
form, to the Northern character, which ren- 
der it stanch, strong, and seaworthy, which 
bind it together as with iron, are sucked out, 
one by one, like the bolts of the ill-fated 
vessel, and from the miserable, loosened 
fragments is formed that human anomaly — 
a JS^orthern man with Southern principles. 
Sir — No such man can speak for the North. 

[Here there was an interruption of pro- 
longed applause in the galleries.] 

The PilESIDENT, (Mr. Stuart in the 
chair.) The Chair will be oblijred to direct 
the galleries to be cleared, if order is not 
preserved. No ajiplausc; will be allowed. 

Several Voices. Let them be cleared 
now. 

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I ad- 
vance now to considerations of a more 
general character, to which I ask your best 
attention. Sir, this bill is proposed as a 
measure of peace. In this way you vainly 
think to withdraw the subject of slavery 
from National politics. This is a mistake. 
Peace ilepeiids on mutual contideuce. It 
can never rest secure on broken faith and 
injustice. And, sir, pi.'rmit me to say, 
frankly, sincerely, and earnestly, that the 



subject of slavery can never be withdrawn 
from tlie National politics, until we return 
once more to the original policy of our 
fathers, at the first organization of the 
Government, under Washington, when the 
National ensign nowhere on the National 
territory covered a siuide slave. 

Slavery, which our fathers branded as an 
" evil," a " curse," an " enormity," a " ne- 
farious institution," is condemned at the 
North by the strongest convictions of the 
reason and the best sentiments of the 
heart. It is the onlv subject within the 
field of National politics which excites any 
real interest. The old matters which 
have divided the minds of men hav^ lost 
their importance. One by one they have 
disappeared, leaving the ground to be oc- 
cupied by a question grander far. The 
Bank, Sub-Treasurv, the Distribution of 
the Public Lands, are each and all obso- 
lete issues. Even the Tarrifl'is not a ques- 
tion on which opposite political parties are 
united in taking opposite sides. And 
now, instead of these superseded ques- 
tions, which were filled for the most part 
with the odor of the dollar, the country is 
directly summoned to consider face to face 
a cause which is connected with all that 
is divine in religion, with all that is pure 
and noble in morals, with all that is truly 
practical and constitutional in politics. 
Unlike the other questions, it is not tem- 
porary or local in its character. It belongs 
to all times and to all countries. Though 
long kept in check, it now, by your intro- , 
duction, confronts the people, demanding 
to be heard. To every man in the land 
it says, with clear, penetrating voice, "Are 
you for Freedom, or are you for Slavery? " 
And every nian in the land must answer 
this question when he votes. 

Pass this bill, and it will be in vain that 
you say, the Slavery Question is settled. 
Sir, jiofhing can be settled which is not right. 
Nothing can be settled which is adverse 
to Freedom. God, nature and all the 
liolv sentiments of the heart, repudiate 
any such false seeming settlement. 

Now, sir, mark the clear line of our 
duty. And here let me speak for those 
with whom, in minority and defeat, I am 
proud to be associated, the Independent 
l)eiuocrats, who espouse that Demoracy 
which is triinsligured in the Declaration of 
Independence and the injunctions of 
Christianity. The testimony which we 
bear against slavery, as against all other 



SPEECH OF CHARLES StJMNER. 



21 



wrong, is in different ways, according to 
our position. The slavery, which exists 
under other Governments — as in Russia 
or Turkey — or in other States of the Union, 
as in Virginia and Carolina, we can oppose 
only through the influence of literature, 
morals, and religion, without in any way 
invokino- the Political Power. Nor is it 
proposed to act otherwise. But slavery, 
where we are parties to it — where we are 
responsible for it — everywhere within our 
jurisdiction — must be opposed, not only 
by all the influence of literature, morals, 
and religion, but directly by every instru- 
ment of Political Power. In the States 
it is sustained by local laws, and although 
we may be compelled to share the shame, 
which its presence inflicts upon the fair 
fame of the country, yet it receives no 
direct sanction at our hands. We are not 
responsible for it. The wrong is not at 
our own particular doors. It is not within 
our jurisdiction. But slavery everywhere 
under the Constitution of the United 
States — everywhere within the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the National Government — 
everywhere under the National Flag, is at 
our own particular doors, within the sphere 
of our own personal responsibility, and 
exists there in defiance of the original pol- 
icy of our Fathers and of the true princi- 
ples of the Constitution. 

It is a mistake to say, as is often charged, 
that we seek to interfere, through Con- 
gress, with slavery in the States, or in any 
way to direct the legislation of Congress 
upon subjects not within its jurisdiction. 
Out political aims, as well as our political 
duties, are co-extensive with our polilical 
responsibilities. And since we at the 
North are responsible for slavery wherever 
it exists under the jurisdiction of Congress, 
it is unpardonable in us not to exert every 
power we possess to enlist Congress 
against it. 

Such is our cause. To men of all par- 
ties and opinions, who wish well to the 
Republic, and would preserve our good 
name, it appeals. Alike to the Conserva- 
tive and the Reformer, it appeals ; for it 
stands on the truest Conservatism and the 
truest Reform. In seeking the reform of 
existing evils, we seek also the conserva- 
tion of the principles of our fathers. The 
cause is not sectional. Oh, no ! sir, it is 
not sectional ; for it simply aims to estab- 
lish under the National Government those 
great principles of Justice and Humanity, 



which are broad and universal as man. 
As well might it be said that Jeff'erson, 
Franklin, and Washington, were sectional. 
It is not aggressive ; for it does not seek 
in any way to interfere, through Congress, 
with slavery in the States. It is not con- 
trary to the Constitution ; for it recognises 
this paramount law, and in the administra- 
tion of the Government invokes the spirit 
"of its founders. Sir, it is not hostile to 
the quiet of the country ; for it proposes 
the only course by which agitation can be 
allayed, and quiet be permanently estab- 
lished. 

It is not uncommon to hear persons 
declare that they are against slavery, and 
are willing to unite in any practical efforts 
to make this opposition felt. At the same 
time, they pharisaically visit with condem- 
nation, with reproach or contempt, the 
earnest souls who for years have striven in 
this struggle. To such I would say — 
could I reach them now with my voice — 
if you are sincere in what you declare ; if 
your words are not merely lip-service ; if 
in your hearts you are entirely willing to 
join in any practical eflorts against slavery, 
then by your lives, by your conversation, 
by your influence, by your votes — disre- 
garding " the ancient forms of party 
strife " — seek to carry the principles of 
Freedom into the National Government, 
wherever its jurisdiction is acknowledged 
and it power can be felt. Thus, without 
any interference with the States, which are 
beyond this jurisdiction, may you help to 
erase the blot of slavery from our National 
brow. 

Do this, and you will most truly promote 
the harmony which you so much desire. 
You will establish tranquillity throughout 
the country. Then at last, sir, the Slavery 
Question will be settled. Banished from 
its usurped foothold under the National 
Government, slavery will no longer enter, 
with distracting force, into the National 
politics — making and unmaking laws, 
making and unmaking Presidents. Con- 
fined to the States, where it was left by 
the Constitution, it will take its place as 
a local institution — if, alas ! continue it 
must ! — for which we are in no sense 
responsible, and against which we cannot 
exert any political power. Wc shall be 
relieved from our present painful and irri- 
tating connection with it. The exi^sting 
antagonism between the North and South 
will be softened ; crimination and rccrim- 



22 



THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM. 



ination will cease; the wishes of the' 
Fathers will be fulfilled, and this Great 
Evil be left to the kindly influences of 
morals and reli^rion, and the prevailing 
laws of social economy. 

I am not blind to the adverse signs. 
But this I see clearly. Amidst all seem- 
ing discouraffements, the "reat omens are 
with us. Art, literature, poetry, religion — 
everything which elevates m:in — all are 
on our side. The plow, the steam-engine, 
the railroad, the telegraph, the book, every 
human improvement, every generous word 
anywhere, every true j)uIsation of every 
heart which is not a mere muscle, and 
nothing else, gives new encouragement 
to the warfare with slavery. The discus- 
sion will proceed. The devices of party 
can no longer stave it off. The subter- 
fuges of the politician cannot escape it. 
The tricks of the olfice-seeker cannot 
dodge it. Wherever an election occurs, 
there this question will arise. Wherever 
men come together to speak of public 
affairs, there again will it be. No political 
Joshua now, with miraculous power, can 
stop the sun in Ids course through the 
heavens. It is even now rejoicing, like 
a strong man, to run its race, and will yet 
send its beams into the most distant plant- 
ations — aye, sir, and melt the chains of 
every slave. 

But this movement — or agitation, as it 
is reproachfully called — is boldly pro- 
nounced injurious to the very object 
desired. Now, without entering into de- 
tails which neither time nor the occasion 
justifies, let me say that this objection be- 
longs to those conmionplaces, which have 
been arrayed against every beneficent 
movement in the world's history — ag;iinst 
even knowledge itself — against the aboli- 
tion of the slave trade. Perh;tj>s it was 
not unnatural ior the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Badger] to press it, even 
as vehemently as he did ; but it sounded 
less natural when it came, though in more 
moderate phrase, from my distinguished 
friend and colleague from Massachusetts, 
[Mr. EvKRETT.] Tlie past furnishes a 
controlling exnmple by wliich its true char- 
acter may be determined. Do not forget, 
sir, that the efforts of William Wilberforce 
encountered this precise objection, and 
that the condition of the kidnapped slave 
was then vindicated, in language not un- 
like that of the Senator from North Caro- 
lina, by no less a person than the Duke of 



Clarence, of the royal family of Great 
Britain. In what was called his maiden 
speech, on INIay 3d, 1792, and preserved 
in the Parliamentary Debates, he said: 
" The negroes were not treated in the 
manner which had so much agitated the 
public mind. lie had been an attentive 
observer of their state, and had no doubt 
that he could brinf forward proofs to con- 
vince their lordships that their state was 
far from being miserable ; on the contrary, 
that when the various ranks of society 
were considered, they were comparatively 
in a state of luuuble happiness." And 
only the next year this same royal prince, 
in debate in the House of Lords, asserted 
that the promoters of the abolition of the 
slave trade were " either fanatics or hypo- 
crites," and in one of these classes he de- 
clared that he ranked Wilberforce. jNIark 
now the end. After years of weary effort, 
the slave trade was finally abolished ; and 
at last, in 1833, the early vindicator of 
even this enormity, the maligner of a name 
hallowed among men, was brought to give 
his royal assent, as William IV, King of 
Great Britain, to the immortal act of Par- 
liament, greater far than any victory of 
war, by which slavery was abolished 
throughout the British dominions. Sir, 
tune and the universal con-;cience have 
vindicated the labors of Wilberforce.- The 
movement against American slavery, aus- 
picated by the august names of Washing- 
ton, Franklin, and Jefferson, can calmly 
await a similar judgment. 

But it is suggested that, in this move- 
ment, there is danger to the Union. In 
this solicitude I cannot share. As a lover 
of concord and a jealous partisan of all 
things that make for peace, I am always 
glad to express my attachment to the 
Union ; but I believe that this bond will 
be most truly preserved and most benefi- 
cently extended (for I shriidc from no ex- 
pansion where Freedom leads the way) by 
lirndy upholding those princi])les of Lib- 
erty and Justice which were made its e;'.rly 
corner-stones. The true danger to this 
Union proceeds, not from any abandon- 
ment of the " peculiar institution " of the 
South, but from the abandonment of the 
spirit in which the Union was formed ; 
not from any warfare, within the limits of 
the Constitution, upon Slavery; but from 
warfare, like that waged by this very bill, 
upon Freedom. The Union is most pre- 
cious; but more precious far are that 



SPEECH OF CHARLES SUMNER. 

" general welfare," " domestic tranquil- 
lity," and those "blessings of Libert}-," 



23 



which it was established to secure ; all 
which are now wantonly endangered. 
Not that I love the Union less, but Free- 
dom more, do I now, in pleading this 
great cause, insist that Freedom, at all 
hazards, shall be preserved. 

One word more, and I have done. The 
great master, Shakspeare, who, with all- 
seeing mortal eye, observed mankind, and 
with immortal pen depicted the manners 
as they rise, has presented a scene which 
may be read with advantage by all who 
would plunge the South into tempestuous 
quarrel with the North. I refer to the 
well-known dialogue between Brutus and 
Cassius. Reading this remarkable pas- 
sage, it is difficult not to see in Brutus our 
own North, and in Cassius the South : 

Cas. Urge me no more, I shall forget myself; 
Have miad upon your health, tempt me no further. 

Bru. Hear me, for I -will speak. 

Must I give way and room to your rush choler? 

Can. ye gods ! ye gods ! " Must I endure all 
this? 

Bru. All this? ay, more: Fret, till your proud 
heart break: 
Go, show your slaves how choleric you are. 
And make your bondmen tremble. Must I budge? 
Must I observe you? Must ytand and croucTi 
Under your testy humor? % ^ 

^/•<. Do not presume too much upon my love 
I may do that I shiill be sorry for. 

Bru. You have done that you should be sorry 
for. 
There is no terror, Cassius, -in your threats; 
For I am arm'd so strong in honesty, 
That they jiass by me, as the idle wind, 



Which I respect not. 

Cas. A friend should bear his friend's infirmi- 
ties. 
But Brutus makes mine greater than they are. 

Bru. I do not, TILL YOU PRACTICE THEM 

ON ME. 
Ctis. You love me not, 
Bru. I do not like your faults. 

Julius Ccasar, Acl 4, sce?ie 3. 

And the colloquy proceeding, each finally 
comes to understand the other, appreciates 
his character and attitude, and the impet- 
uous gallant Cassius exclaims, "Give me 
your hand;" to which Brutus replies, 
"And my heart too." Afterwards, with 
hand and heart united, on the field of 
Philippi they together upheld the liberties 
of Rome 

The North and the South, sir, as I fond- 
ly trust, amidst all differences, will ever 
have a hand and heart for each other ; and, 
believing in the sure prevalence of Al- 
mighty Truth, I confidently look forward 
to the good time, when both will unite, 
according to the sentiments of the Fathers 
and the true spirit of the Constitution, in 
declaring Freedom and not Slavery nation- 
al, to the end that the Flag of the Repub- 
lic, wherever it floats, on sea or land, with- 
in the na/2on«/ jurisdiction, may not cover 
a single slave. Then will be achieved 
that Union, contemplated at the beginning, 
against which the storms of faction and 
the assaults of foreign power shall beat in 
vain, as upon the Rock of Ages ; and 
LIBERTY, seeking a firm foothold, will 

HAVE AT LAST WHEREON TO STAND AND 
MOVE THE WORLD. 



EUBLL A BLANCHARD, PUI.NTEIIS, WAfcjHI.NGTON, D. G. 



> 



